Yeah, Bush lied

[TexasTiger 12,949]

TexasTiger.. your attempt to spin this topic into a personal attack toward me only goes to show that you have nothing to support your claims.

Worse, you've displayed your inferiority complex on an Auburn board, for all to see.

I'll not play at your petty level.

Bush didn't lie, you know it, and it's just eating you up inside.

Learn to cope, brother....you'll live longer.

162916[/snapback]

Denial is a coping mechanism. You've mastered it.

[Tiger Al 0]

FDR lied.  Link

Franklin Roosevelt often lied to further his goals. In a radio address broadcast to the nation on 23 October 1940, for example, he gave "this most solemn assurance" that he had not given any "secret understanding in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any government or any other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any war or for any other purpose." But American, British and Polish documents (mostly released many years later) proved that this "most solemn assurance" was a bald-faced lie. Roosevelt had, in fact, made numerous secret arrangements to involve the U.S. in war.

Of all his speeches, perhaps the best example of Roosevelt's readiness to lie is his 1941 Navy Day address broadcast over nationwide radio on 27 October.

A lot had happened in the months preceding that address. On 11 March 1941 Roosevelt signed the Lend-Lease bill into law, permitting increased deliveries of military aid to Britain in violation of U.S. neutrality and international law. In April Roosevelt illegally sent U.S. troops to occupy Greenland. On 27 May he proclaimed a state of "unlimited national emergency," a kind of presidential declaration of war that circumvented a power constitutionally reserved to Congress. Following the Axis attack against the USSR in June, the Roosevelt administration began delivering enormous quantities of military aid to the beleagured Soviets. These shipments also blatantly violated international law. In July Roosevelt illegally sent American troops to occupy Iceland.

The President began his Navy Day address by recalling that German submarines had torpedoed the U.S. destroyer Greer on 4 September 1941 and the U.S. destroyer Kearny on 17 October. In highly emotional language, he characterized these incidents as unprovoked acts of aggression directed against all Americans. He declared that although he had wanted to avoid conflict, shooting had begun and "history has recorded who fired the first shot." What Roosevelt deliberately failed to mention was the fact that in each case the U.S. destroyers had been engaged in attack operations against the submarines, which fired in self-defense only as a last resort. Hitler wanted to avoid war with the United States, and had expressly ordered German submarines to avoid conflicts with U.S warships at all costs, except to avoid imminent destruction. Roosevelt's standing "shoot on sight" orders to the U.S Navy were specifically designed to make incidents like the ones he so piously condemned inevitable. His provocative efforts to goad Hitler into declaring war against the U.S. had failed and most Americans still opposed direct involvement in the European conflict.

And so, in an effort to convince his listeners that Germany was a real threat to American security, Roosevelt continued his Navy Day speech with a startling announcement: "Hitler has often protested that his plans for conquest do not extend across the Atlantic Ocean. I have in my possession a secret map, made in Germany by Hitler's government-by the planners of the new world order. It is a map of South America and a part of Central America as Hitler proposes to reorganize it." This map, the President explained, showed South America, as well as "our great life line, the Panama Canal," divided into five vassal states under German domination. "That map, my friends, makes clear the Nazi design not only against South America but against the United States as well."

Roosevelt went on to reveal that he also had in his possession "another document made in Germany by Hitler's government. It is a detailed plan to abolish all existing religions -- Catholic, Protestant, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish alike" which Germany will impose "on a dominated world, if Hitler wins."

"The property of all churches will be seized by the Reich and its puppets. The cross and all other symbols of religion are to be for- bidden. The clergy are to be ever liquidated. In the place of the churches of our civilization there is to be set up an international Nazi church, a church which will be served by orators sent out by the Nazi government. And in the place of the Bible, the words of Mein Kampf will be imposed and enforced as Holy Writ. And in the place of the cross of Christ will be put two symbols: the swastika and the naked sword."

Roosevelt emphasized the importances of his "revelations" by declaring: "Let us well ponder these grim truths which I have told you of the present and future plans of Hitlerism" All Americans, he said, "are faced with the choice between the kind of world we want to live in and the kind of world which Hitler and his hordes would impose on us." Accordingly, "we are pledged to pull our own oar in the destruction of Hitlerism." The German government immediately responded to Roosevelt's speech by denouncing his "documents" as preposterous frauds. The Italian government declared that if Roosevelt did not publish his map "within 24 hours, he will acquire a sky high reputation as a forger." At a press conference the next day, a reporter rather naturally asked the President for a copy of the "secret map." But Roosevelt refused, insisting only that it came from "a source which is undoubtedly reliable."

As has often happened, the truth about the map did not emerge until many years after the war: It was a forgery produced by the British intelligence service, most probably at its technical laboratory in Ontario, Canada. William Stephenson (code name: Intrepid), chief of British intelligence operations in North America, passed it on to U.S. intelligence chief William Donovan, who gave it to Roosevelt. In a memoir published in late 1984, war-time British agent Ivar Bryce claimed credit for thinking up the "secret map" scheme. Of course, the other "document" cited by Roosevelt, purporting to outline German plans to abolish the world's religions, was just as fraudulent as the "secret map."

Some U.S. officials were concerned about British wartime ef- forts to deceive the American government and people. In a 5 September 1941 memorandum forwarded to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle warned that British intelligence agents were manufacturing phony documents detailing supposed German conspiracies. Americans should be "on our guard" against these British-invented "false scares," Berle concluded.

It's doubtful if any of Roosevelt's great contemporaries, including Stalin, Hitler and even Churchill, ever delivered a speech as loaded with falsehoods as brazen as those in his 1941 Navy Day address. On at least one occasion, Roosevelt privately admitted his willingness to lie to further his goals. During a conversation on 14 May 1942 with his close Jewish adviser, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., the President candidly remarked: "I may have one policy for Europe and one diametrically opposite for North and South America. I maybe entirely inconsistent, and furthermore, I am perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths if it will help us win the war."

People died 407,317 US military (combat + other.) Link

Dang. All that sacrifice to support a lying, egotisical, power-hungry tyrant that not only had every intention of getting the US into a shooting war (and eventually did,) but he also orderded the imprisonment of his own citizens for years without charges or trial in an American Gulag, euphemistically called "Internment Camps." Just look at the dates for the official War Plans that were being drawn up: Link

I mean there were plans to go to war with Japan back in the 1930's and the US & Britain were conducting joint planning for operations against Germany as early as May 1940 -- a year and a half prior to actually being at war!

You are a FOOL if you don't believe FDR had his mind set on going to war prior to actually announcing war with Germany or Japan.

162894[/snapback]

Sorry, Loggerhead, I just can't seem to get myself too worked up over this. Is this the point where I'm supposed to say, "OMG, Roosevelt lied so it must be OK for Bush to have lied?"

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

Sorry, Loggerhead, I just can't seem to get myself too worked up over this. Is this the point where I'm supposed to say, "OMG, Roosevelt lied so it must be OK for Bush to have lied?"

162986[/snapback]

You must admit that there are striking parallels between the two. Yes? Except that in Rooseveldt's case the lies, illegal detentions (120k,) deaths (+400k,) etc. were all on a much grander scale.

If Bush's alleged mendacity is so egregious now ... then what are we to make of Rooseveldt's then? Should we consider Rooseveldt's blatant disregard for the Constitution then excusable because he ultimately got rid of not one but two monstrously barbaric regimes? Is it because it's over 60 years ago and it doesn't reflect on today's world?

I have to ask you: Knowing what we all know about history since the end of WWII, did Rooseveldt's ends (public lying, illegal actions in peacetime to get the US into the war on the side of the UK & USSR) justify the means (ultimate victory in the war?)

[Tiger Al 0]

Sorry, Loggerhead, I just can't seem to get myself too worked up over this. Is this the point where I'm supposed to say, "OMG, Roosevelt lied so it must be OK for Bush to have lied?"

162986[/snapback]

You must admit that there are striking parallels between the two. Yes? Except that in Rooseveldt's case the lies, illegal detentions (120k,) deaths (+400k,) etc. were all on a much grander scale.

If Bush's alleged mendacity is so egregious now ... then what are we to make of Rooseveldt's then? Should we consider Rooseveldt's blatant disregard for the Constitution then excusable because he ultimately got rid of not one but two monstrously barbaric regimes? Is it because it's over 60 years ago and it doesn't reflect on today's world?

I have to ask you: Knowing what we all know about history since the end of WWII, did Rooseveldt's ends (public lying, illegal actions in peacetime to get the US into the war on the side of the UK & USSR) justify the means (ultimate victory in the war?)

163093[/snapback]

The parallels would be even more accurate if Roosevelt had said and done all of these things only, when we got to Berlin, the sum of Hitler's feared wehrmacht consisted of nothing more than some Hitler youth running around in their lederhosen singing "Deustchland, Deustchland, Uber Alles." Hussein in 1991 was barely a fraction of the threat to the world at large that Hitler was. Hussein in 2003 wasn't even a threat to himself.

I really don't think this "Roosevelt lied so Bush can, too" angle is going to have a very long half-life, but, if you can make it work, more power to you.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Sorry, Loggerhead, I just can't seem to get myself too worked up over this. Is this the point where I'm supposed to say, "OMG, Roosevelt lied so it must be OK for Bush to have lied?"

162986[/snapback]

You must admit that there are striking parallels between the two. Yes? Except that in Rooseveldt's case the lies, illegal detentions (120k,) deaths (+400k,) etc. were all on a much grander scale.

If Bush's alleged mendacity is so egregious now ... then what are we to make of Rooseveldt's then? Should we consider Rooseveldt's blatant disregard for the Constitution then excusable because he ultimately got rid of not one but two monstrously barbaric regimes? Is it because it's over 60 years ago and it doesn't reflect on today's world?

I have to ask you: Knowing what we all know about history since the end of WWII, did Rooseveldt's ends (public lying, illegal actions in peacetime to get the US into the war on the side of the UK & USSR) justify the means (ultimate victory in the war?)

163093[/snapback]

The parallels would be even more accurate if Roosevelt had said and done all of these things only, when we got to Berlin, the sum of Hitler's feared wehrmacht consisted of nothing more than some Hitler youth running around in their lederhosen singing "Deustchland, Deustchland, Uber Alles." Hussein in 1991 was barely a fraction of the threat to the world at large that Hitler was. Hussein in 2003 wasn't even a threat to himself.

I really don't think this "Roosevelt lied so Bush can, too" angle is going to have a very long half-life, but, if you can make it work, more power to you.

163099[/snapback]

Aw, c'mon, Al. Hitler controlled the European continent for years and part of Africa, Saddam held Kuwait for a few months years ago-- that's about equal, ain't it?

[Tiger Al 0]

Sorry, Loggerhead, I just can't seem to get myself too worked up over this. Is this the point where I'm supposed to say, "OMG, Roosevelt lied so it must be OK for Bush to have lied?"

162986[/snapback]

You must admit that there are striking parallels between the two. Yes? Except that in Rooseveldt's case the lies, illegal detentions (120k,) deaths (+400k,) etc. were all on a much grander scale.

If Bush's alleged mendacity is so egregious now ... then what are we to make of Rooseveldt's then? Should we consider Rooseveldt's blatant disregard for the Constitution then excusable because he ultimately got rid of not one but two monstrously barbaric regimes? Is it because it's over 60 years ago and it doesn't reflect on today's world?

I have to ask you: Knowing what we all know about history since the end of WWII, did Rooseveldt's ends (public lying, illegal actions in peacetime to get the US into the war on the side of the UK & USSR) justify the means (ultimate victory in the war?)

163093[/snapback]

The parallels would be even more accurate if Roosevelt had said and done all of these things only, when we got to Berlin, the sum of Hitler's feared wehrmacht consisted of nothing more than some Hitler youth running around in their lederhosen singing "Deustchland, Deustchland, Uber Alles." Hussein in 1991 was barely a fraction of the threat to the world at large that Hitler was. Hussein in 2003 wasn't even a threat to himself.

I really don't think this "Roosevelt lied so Bush can, too" angle is going to have a very long half-life, but, if you can make it work, more power to you.

163099[/snapback]

Aw, c'mon, Al. Hitler controlled the European continent for years and part of Africa, Saddam held Kuwait for a few months years ago-- that's about equal, ain't it?

163101[/snapback]

Not equal. Unless you're playing Risk.

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

The parallels would be even more accurate if Roosevelt had said and done all of these things only, when we got to Berlin, the sum of Hitler's feared wehrmacht consisted of nothing more than some Hitler youth running around in their lederhosen singing "Deustchland, Deustchland, Uber Alles." Hussein in 1991 was barely a fraction of the threat to the world at large that Hitler was. Hussein in 2003 wasn't even a threat to himself.

I really don't think this "Roosevelt lied so Bush can, too" angle is going to have a very long half-life, but, if you can make it work, more power to you.

163099[/snapback]

I'm not saying "Roosevelt lied so Bush can too." Neither am I saying "Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, so Bush can too." If you think that's the sum total of my posting any of this information, then you couldn't be more wrong.

You chose to ignore the question I posed for you. All right, I'll give you my answer: Roosevelt was right, and the Charles Lindberghs of the country & the America First anti-war movement were wrong. Totally wrong. Roosevelt understood something the rest of the country didn't: you can't ignore a global threat by pretending to mind your own business at home. Also, planning for military action takes time. In WWII, the joint planning the US & UK did in May 1940 and beyond ultimately helped them in later years when actual combat took place.

Fast forward 60-some odd years. Similarly, the Islamo-terrorist threat is global in scope, not unlike the Fascist-Militarist threat of the Axis powers. At the forefront of this threat is Al-Queda, but by no means is it limited solely to that one organization. Someone pointed out in another thread that there are Islamo-terrorists planning to strike at hospitals & supermarkets in the US. The threat today to the US is unlike any threat we've faced in the past. Saddam Hussein was a threat too. You may wish to equate SH's threat as no more dangerous than a singing Hitler youth member, and that's your prerogative. Thankfully, those in the Bush administation thought otherwise and eliminated his regime. You point to military planning occuring as early as 2002 as proof that Bush lied. To me that's merely proof that the threat of using military force was real, and that if you are going to use it then you better be planning ahead (see Roosevelt's actions prior to the US entering the war.) To delay planning until the order is give to invade is really short-sighted, wouldn't you agree?

[Auburn85 432]

The parallels would be even more accurate if Roosevelt had said and done all of these things only, when we got to Berlin, the sum of Hitler's feared wehrmacht consisted of nothing more than some Hitler youth running around in their lederhosen singing "Deustchland, Deustchland, Uber Alles." Hussein in 1991 was barely a fraction of the threat to the world at large that Hitler was. Hussein in 2003 wasn't even a threat to himself.

I really don't think this "Roosevelt lied so Bush can, too" angle is going to have a very long half-life, but, if you can make it work, more power to you.

163099[/snapback]

I'm not saying "Roosevelt lied so Bush can too." Neither am I saying "Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, so Bush can too." If you think that's the sum total of my posting any of this information, then you couldn't be more wrong.

You chose to ignore the question I posed for you. All right, I'll give you my answer: Roosevelt was right, and the Charles Lindberghs of the country & the America First anti-war movement were wrong. Totally wrong. Roosevelt understood something the rest of the country didn't: you can't ignore a global threat by pretending to mind your own business at home. Also, planning for military action takes time. In WWII, the joint planning the US & UK did in May 1940 and beyond ultimately helped them in later years when actual combat took place.

Fast forward 60-some odd years. Similarly, the Islamo-terrorist threat is global in scope, not unlike the Fascist-Militarist threat of the Axis powers. At the forefront of this threat is Al-Queda, but by no means is it limited solely to that one organization. Someone pointed out in another thread that there are Islamo-terrorists planning to strike at hospitals & supermarkets in the US. The threat today to the US is unlike any threat we've faced in the past. Saddam Hussein was a threat too. You may wish to equate SH's threat as no more dangerous than a singing Hitler youth member, and that's your prerogative. Thankfully, those in the Bush administation thought otherwise and eliminated his regime. You point to military planning occuring as early as 2002 as proof that Bush lied. To me that's merely proof that the threat of using military force was real, and that if you are going to use it then you better be planning ahead (see Roosevelt's actions prior to the US entering the war.) To delay planning until the order is give to invade is really short-sighted, wouldn't you agree?

163112[/snapback]

well put

[Tiger Al 0]

You point to military planning occuring as early as 2002 as proof that Bush lied.

No, I don't. I point to the part in the Downing Street memo that said Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD and was "fixing" the intelligence and the facts around the policy. Also the part that said it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action (7/2002), even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Having a plan of attack, and defense, is sound military planning. We have plans for a multitude of scenarios. We probably have a plan in place to attack Canada should the need ever arise. Bush had already decided that military action was going to happen no matter what all the while promising Congress and the country that it would always be the last option. Many members in Congress gave their authorization based on that promise. Had he said outright that America was going to invade Iraq whether they allowed UN inspectors in or not and whether any WMD were found or not, I sincerely wonder if Congress would've still given authorization. Representatives and Senators up for re-election were pressured before the elections to decide whether they would blindly support the war and those who asked questions were skewered by their opponents for "hating America" and "loving Osama bin Laden" because they didn't keep their mouths shut and march lockstep with the president.

[CCTAU 3,327]

And now Libya and Iraq are on equal ground in the WMD category. So we took down a greater opponent by defeating a lesser one. That's a helluva victory.